FAYETTEVILLE, Ark.—Yesterday, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas granted NetChoice’s request for a preliminary injunction against Act 901, preventing the law from taking effect while our case, NetChoice v. Griffin, proceeds through the legal system.
This ruling marks the second time a federal court has blocked Arkansas from enforcing an unconstitutional social media law, reaffirming that the state cannot bypass the First Amendment by reframing censorship as “safety.”
“Over the last few years, unconstitutional speech restrictions have come flying out of Arkansas. But as this decision re-affirms, Arkansas cannot employ creative drafting to evade the First Amendment,” said Paul Taske, Co-Director of the NetChoice Litigation Center. “The government can no more restrict access to books or television shows it disfavors than penalize social media for displaying snippets or clips of that speech online, and it certainly cannot single out social media for disfavored treatment.”
Taske continued: “This decision is a win for free speech in Arkansas, but it is also a signal to lawmakers across the country—including on Capitol Hill—that laws imposing liability on social media for displaying fully protected speech are unconstitutional. To be successful, laws intended to protect Americans online must respect the First Amendment. Otherwise, they will not protect anyone.”
Here’s what Arkansans need to know about the ruling and why Act 901 was blocked:
- A Victory for the First Amendment: The court found that Act 901’s restrictions on “addictive” algorithms and content are likely unconstitutional content-based restrictions. The ruling emphasized that the government cannot suppress lawful speech for the entire population just to protect a specific subset of users, noting that the state may not “reduce the adult population to only what is fit for children”.
- Vague Laws Lead to Censorship: The court agreed that the law’s “should have known” liability standard was too vague. Because the law failed to specify exactly what conduct was prohibited, it would have forced platforms to over-censor lawful content to avoid liability based on the “sensitivities of some unspecified user.”
- Algorithms are Protected Speech: The ruling affirms that algorithms are protected by the First Amendment. The court found that banning these tools because they might be “addictive” is not narrowly tailored and would burden the speech of every Arkansan on the platform.
- Parents, Not Politicians: This is another rejection of the state’s attempt to usurp parental authority. As NetChoice has consistently argued, parents are best positioned to manage their children’s online activity. Act 901 offered false hope to families while unconstitutionally restricting the rights of all Arkansans.
NetChoice is confident that Act 901 will be struck down permanently as the case moves forward. We stand firm in protecting digital spaces for all Arkansans and ensuring the internet remains free from government overreach.
You can read the court’s order granting the preliminary injunction here.
Find full case resources for NetChoice v. Griffin (2025) here.
Please contact press@netchoice.org with inquiries.